Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Orbital Implants and Wrapping Materials

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Anophthalmia

  • 303 Accesses

Abstract

Following globe removal, the surgeon must determine the best orbital implant to place into the anophthalmic socket. A decision on appropriate implant size, whether to place a porous or nonporous implant, and a patient’s total clinical picture must be considered to prevent future complications. Other considerations, including whether to wrap an implant and place a motility peg, must also be made. The modern implant is built on the foundation of anophthalmic socket reconstruction—implant retention, volume replacement, and adequate prosthetic motility. This chapter will review the special considerations the ophthalmic surgeon must weigh when choosing an orbital implant following enucleation and evisceration surgeries.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Burch FE. Evisceration of the globe with scleral implant and preservation of the cornea. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 1939;37:272–82.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Luce CM. A short history of enucleation. Int Ophthalmol Clin. 1970;10(4):681–7.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Mules PH. Evisceration of the globe with artificial vitreous. 1884–1895. Adv Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 1990;8:69–72.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Berens C. Enucleation with implantation of foreign substances into Tenon’s capsule: a technique in which no sutures are buried. Am J Ophthalmol. 1937;20(3):293–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Lang W. On the insertion of artificial globes into Tenon’s capsule after excising the eye. Trans Ophth Soc UK. 1887;7:286.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Wheeler JM. Implantation of hollow grooved body into orbit for filling: late after enucleation of eyeball. Arch Ophthalmol. 1938;20(5):709–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Allen JH, Allen L. A buried muscle cone implant. Development of a tunneled hemispherical type. Arch Ophthalmol. 1950;43(5):879–90.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Cutler NL. A positive contact ball and ring implant for use after enucleation. Arch Ophthalmol. 1947;37(1):73–81.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Mules PH. Evisceration of the eye, and its relation to the bacterial theory of the origin of sympathetic disease. Br Med J. 1886;1(1310):246–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Shields CL, Shields JA, De Potter P, Singh AD. Problems with the hydroxyapatite orbital implant: experience with 250 consecutive cases. Br J Ophthalmol. 1994;78(9):702–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Kaltreider SA, Newman SA. Prevention and management of complications associated with the hydroxyapatite implant. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 1996;12(1):18–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Custer PL, Trinkaus KM. Volumetric determination of enucleation implant size. Am J Ophthalmol. 1999;128(4):489–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Tyers AG, Collin JR. Baseball orbital implants: a review of 39 patients. Br J Ophthalmol. 1985;69(6):438–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Bentley RP, Sgouros S, Natarajan K, Dover MS, Hockley AD. Normal changes in orbital volume during childhood. J Neurosurg. 2002;96(4):742–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Yoon JS, Lew H, Kim SJ, Lee SY. Exposure rate of hydroxyapatite orbital implants a 15-year experience of 802 cases. Ophthalmology. 2008;115(3):566–72 e2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Remulla HD, Rubin PA, Shore JW, Sutula FC, Townsend DJ, Woog JJ, et al. Complications of porous spherical orbital implants. Ophthalmology. 1995;102(4):586–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Trichopoulos N, Augsburger JJ. Enucleation with unwrapped porous and nonporous orbital implants: a 15-year experience. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005;21(5):331–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Colen TP, Paridaens DA, Lemij HG, Mourits MP, van Den Bosch WA. Comparison of artificial eye amplitudes with acrylic and hydroxyapatite spherical enucleation implants. Ophthalmology. 2000;107(10):1889–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Custer PL, Trinkaus KM, Fornoff J. Comparative motility of hydroxyapatite and alloplastic enucleation implants. Ophthalmology. 1999;106(3):513–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Su GW, Yen MT. Current trends in managing the anophthalmic socket after primary enucleation and evisceration. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;20(4):274–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lyle CE, Wilson MW, Li CS, Kaste SC. Comparison of orbital volumes in enucleated patients with unilateral retinoblastoma: hydroxyapatite implants versus silicone implants. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;23(5):393–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Wells TS, Harris GJ. Direct fixation of extraocular muscles to a silicone sphere: a cost-sensitive, low-risk enucleation procedure. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;27(5):364–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Spivey BE, Allen L, Burns CA. The Iowa enucleation implant. A 10-year evaluation of technique and results. Am J Ophthalmol. 1969;67(2):171–88.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Karsloglu S, Serin D, Simsek I, Ziylan S. Implant infection in porous orbital implants. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;22(6):461–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Chuo JY, Dolman PJ, Ng TL, Buffam FV, White VA. Clinical and histopathologic review of 18 explanted porous polyethylene orbital implants. Ophthalmology. 2009;116(2):349–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Custer PL, Trinkaus KM. Porous implant exposure: incidence, management, and morbidity. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;23(1):1–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Dutton JJ. Coralline hydroxyapatite as an ocular implant. Ophthalmology. 1991;98(3):370–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Perry AC. Integrated orbital implants. Adv Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 1990;8:75–81.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Shields CL, Shields JA, De Potter P, Singh AD. Lack of complications of the hydroxyapatite orbital implant in 250 consecutive cases. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 1993;91:177–89; discussion 89–95.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Nunery WR, Heinz GW, Bonnin JM, Martin RT, Cepela MA. Exposure rate of hydroxyapatite spheres in the anophthalmic socket: histopathologic correlation and comparison with silicone sphere implants. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 1993;9(2):96–104.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Klapper SR, Jordan DR, Brownstein S, Punja K. Incomplete fibrovascularization of a hydroxyapatite orbital implant 3 months after implantation. Arch Ophthalmol. 1999;117(8):1088–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Rosner M, Edward DP, Tso MO. Foreign-body giant-cell reaction to the hydroxyapatite orbital implant. Arch Ophthalmol. 1992;110(2):173–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Goldberg RA, Holds JB, Ebrahimpour J. Exposed hydroxyapatite orbital implants. Report of six cases. Ophthalmology. 1992;99(5):831–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Jordan DR, Hwang I, Brownstein S, McEachren T, Gilberg S, Grahovac S, et al. The molteno m-sphere. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000;16(5):356–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Jordan DR, Munro SM, Brownstein S, Gilberg SM, Grahovac SZ. A synthetic hydroxyapatite implant: the so-called counterfeit implant. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998;14(4):244–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Celik T, Yuksel D, Kosker M, Kasim R, Simsek S. Vascularization of coralline versus synthetic hydroxyapatite orbital implants assessed by gadolinium enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Curr Eye Res. 2015;40(3):346–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Karesh JW, Dresner SC. High-density porous polyethylene (Medpor) as a successful anophthalmic socket implant. Ophthalmology. 1994;101(10):1688–95; discussion 95–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Hornblass A, Biesman BS, Eviatar JA. Current techniques of enucleation: a survey of 5,439 intraorbital implants and a review of the literature. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 1995;11(2):77–86; discussion 7–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Jordan DR, Mawn LA, Brownstein S, McEachren TM, Gilberg SM, Hill V, et al. The bioceramic orbital implant: a new generation of porous implants. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000;16(5):347–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Badilla J, Dolman PJ. Methods of antibiotic instillation in porous orbital implants. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;24(4):287–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Buettner H, Bartley GB. Tissue breakdown and exposure associated with orbital hydroxyapatite implants. Am J Ophthalmol. 1992;113(6):669–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Li T, Shen J, Duffy MT. Exposure rates of wrapped and unwrapped orbital implants following enucleation. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001;17(6):431–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Christmas NJ, Van Quill K, Murray TG, Gordon CD, Garonzik S, Tse D, et al. Evaluation of efficacy and complications: primary pediatric orbital implants after enucleation. Arch Ophthalmol. 2000;118(4):503–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Seiff SR, Chang JS Jr, Hurt MH, Khayam-Bashi H. Polymerase chain reaction identification of human immunodeficiency virus-1 in preserved human sclera. Am J Ophthalmol. 1994;118(4):528–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Jordan DR, Allen LH, Ells A, Gilberg S, Brownstein S, Munro S, et al. The use of Vicryl mesh (polyglactin 910) for implantation of hydroxyapatite orbital implants. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 1995;11(2):95–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Jongman HP, Marinkovic M, Notting I, Koetsier L, Swart W, Schalij-Delfos NE, et al. Donor sclera-wrapped acrylic orbital implants following enucleation: experience in 179 patients in the Netherlands. Acta Ophthalmol. 2016;94(3):253–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Suter AJ, Molteno AC, Bevin TH, Fulton JD, Herbison P. Long term follow up of bone derived hydroxyapatite orbital implants. Br J Ophthalmol. 2002;86(11):1287–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Blaydon SM, Shepler TR, Neuhaus RW, White WL, Shore JW. The porous polyethylene (Medpor) spherical orbital implant: a retrospective study of 136 cases. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;19(5):364–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Jordan DR, Klapper SR. A new titanium peg system for hydroxyapatite orbital implants. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000;16(5):380–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Rokohl AC, Koch KR, Trester M, Trester W, Pine KR, Heindl LM. Concerns of anophthalmic patients wearing cryolite glass prosthetic eyes. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;34(4):369–74.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Oculoplastic Surgery, Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, Miami, FL, USA

    Andrew J. Rong

  2. Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA

    Thomas E. Johnson

Authors
  1. Andrew J. Rong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas E. Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew J. Rong .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami, Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA

    Thomas E. Johnson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Rong, A.J., Johnson, T.E. (2020). Orbital Implants and Wrapping Materials. In: Johnson, T. (eds) Anophthalmia . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29753-4_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29753-4_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-29752-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-29753-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation